Object of shared understanding?
Francoise Herrmann (fherrmann who-is-at igc.apc.org)
Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Alfred, Hi xmca (Romeo! Juliet!), Perhaps that we should go out
to proove the indistinguishable conflation of two classes (humans and computerss
for example) at least we would end up "prooving" the contrary! I agree
after Eva's clarification of artefacts as mediating component that the
difference may not be at that level of abstraction of any use. But, in the
desire to capture the triangular relationship of components, to speak the
lines that oppose or unite the components, why is it that conflation surfaces?
to the point that one finds it necesary to argue for separate membership?
Why is it that the terms belie the contrary? That perhaps is why I suspect
that the choir isn't singing quite along the lines of a shared understanding.
Francoise
Francoise Herrmann
fherrmann who-is-at igc.apc.org
http://www.wenet.net~herrmann